Stablecoins aren’t a revolution. They’re a reenactment. A high-frequency redo of every monetary collapse since Rome debased its denarius. The actors change—suits to hoodies, gold to GPU farms—but the script’s the same leveraged systemic myopia.

Antiques dealer, machine psychologist. http://www.musicinphasespace.com

how is USDC a “redo of every monetary collapse since Rome”? it’s a 1:1 USD wrapper that holds short-dated bonds to generate profit, same thing as nearly every bank you use daily.

just happens to be a better USD than USD itself for many uses: faster and cheaper remittances with instant settlement.

if USDC fails, then so does the U.S. dollar in which case, you and everyone you know is fucked anyway.

The token represents a claim to $1 in reserves, just as the denarius represented a claim to a specific silver content. The actual backing might not match what's claimed (similar to reduced silver content). Users can't easily verify the backing without trusting external validators (just as ordinary Romans couldn't easily test silver content). Market  can maintain the peg even when backing is questionable, until a crisis occurs

https://warpcast.com/bravojohnson/0x6a62a741

Technically, the same dollar could be represented in multiple places at once, creating a form of double-spending across systems. Regulatory” oversight and attestations, which are themselves trust-based systems aren't fundamental innovations in the monetary model - they're just additional layers of the same trust assumption. the promise that something of value backs the currency that users cannot directly verify.

figuring out my next thing | marketing, content, growth | prev. Juicebox, Nouns, RAW DAO | casting about coffee, hi-fi, and other rabbit holes

you’re claiming that USDC, the most straightlaced and by-the-book stablecoin issuer, is not 1:1 backed with zero proof? hardly convincing.